Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky 115 Replies latest jw friends

  • SAHS
    SAHS

    I agree that no one can be forced to communicate or associate with anyone else, and I agree that publicly announcing that so-and-so has effectively chosen to no longer be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is simply and rightly stating a fact; HOWEVER, the problem is that the Watch Tower corporation has deliberately and consistently published in its enormous collection of literature the very clear and binding directives to all its membership that they absolutely must shun any who lose their standing within the organization (or else!) – regardless of any close family ties, and regardless of the very real and profound psychological and emotional damages this inevitably causes.

    So, although the secular law cannot mandate fellowship among members of any group, I think that the government should carefully investigate the practices of blatant coercion within religious groups, especially considering the tax-free status demanded by such groups and the very real damages suffered by many people in the community.

    Whether or not the government can, or should, enact legislation to directly adjudicate specific cases of damages suffered from a religious group’s harmful policies, the thing which is perhaps most important is the public reporting on such harmful policies and their effects on real people in the community through the media. No doubt just one minute of coverage in the general media exposing the destructive tactics of these disingenuous religious outfits would probably be of greater worth than all the petitions we can muster. That gets them where it hurts the most: their public reputation. And such negative public exposure is the worst enemy of an outfit like Jehovah’s Witnesses – because it has the greatest power to cost them dearly in the very thing they need: the numbers of new members!

  • StephaneLaliberte
    StephaneLaliberte
    Simon: Imagine 10 friends. 1 makes a pass at someone else's wife or does something that the social circle disapproves of. They stop inviting them to meet-ups.

    Your example doesn't work for one simple reason: There is no clear authority structure in such a group. They all make their own choices. Religion is not a simple "social circle". They can take disciplinary actions against members.

    Richard Oliver: Who would enforce no shunning rules? How would you enforce it? How can someone prove that they didn't speak to someone not for religious reasons but for another reason? Would family members be required to communicate with each other a certain amount each day, week, month or year? Would there be jail time for not communicating with someone?

    Building a system, an organisation, that clearly demonstrate a will to outcast people from their social circle should be considered abusive and criminal. Hence, who ever sets a rule that is than printed as a law in the Elder's Book would be treated as criminals (fine, prison terms, half way houses, etc). The same treatment should be reserved for any elder being recorded unduly pressuring a member to shun anyone else. If three elders sit in a JC over someone who broke the shunning policy, they'd be treated as criminals also.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    the Watch Tower corporation has deliberately and consistently published in its enormous collection of literature the very clear and binding directives to all its membership that they absolutely must shun any who lose their standing within the organization (or else!) – regardless of any close family ties, and regardless of the very real and profound psychological and emotional damages this inevitably causes.

    Good point SAHS

    Another relevant issue is that the WTS encourages young impressionable teens to get baptized so all of these shunning regulations can be placed against them right up to when they mature into adults, which at times these adults rethink their commitment to the WTS. wanting to leave .

    If they desire to leave there are dire consequences levied against them for doing so, such as losing their family relationships.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Interesting thread.

    I think pale.emperor has it right - shunning isn't good behaviour for a registered charity.

    The charitable status of Watchtower should be revoked.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver
    In the US for the government to enforce a prior restraint on the speech of a citizen or an organization they have to show a compelling governmental interest in restraining that speech. The most common expression that comes to mind is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, but why would that restraint be permissible. The government has a compelling interest in keeping citizens safe from the undue panic that could cause foreseeable and imminent danger. If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre many people will rush out of the theatre and the likelihood of injuries is read and substantial so there is a compelling interest in stopping that kind of speech. The other issue is that Watchtower can claim freedom of the press when they present material in a written format they are serving in a capacity of the press. In New York Times v United States the court ruled that the government could not stop the paper from printing the pentagon papers even though the Nixon administration felt that there was a compelling government interest in keeping secrets just that secret. The court ruled that there is a heavy burden that the government must show in order to restrain the conduct of the press and that even those secrets did not rise to the level of that burden.
  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    What gets dramatically confusing is the WTS has created a formative religion around a business which is publishing.

    It is supposed to be a non profit charity organization and the WTS had to stop posting purchase pricing on all its literature because of that.

    Personally I think the WTS shouldn't have any right to do anything if that person leaves their organization and is a non participant. So this hunting down of people and Dfing them for leaving or moving on to another religion is illegal concerning the basic rights and freedoms of the individual.

    The WTS has no legal ground to publicly announce someone not being a JWS therefore instigating a shunning policy ( Hate) against them after a person proclaims they dont want to be involved with this organization.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Your example doesn't work for one simple reason: There is no clear authority structure in such a group. They all make their own choices. Religion is not a simple "social circle". They can take disciplinary actions against members.

    I think the reality is that someone usually is more "leader" in a group even if not a clear leader. But still, even the WTS is setup where people chose to follow. They are not a government agency who can compel you to attend meetings, they are not the mafia who will show up with guns.

    Whatever disciplinary action they can take is completely linked to membership of the group. They have a set of rules - you can't chose to be a member and chose to violate the rules of membership and expect to remain a member.

    Seems a pretty simple premise doesn't it?

    Building a system, an organisation, that clearly demonstrate a will to outcast people from their social circle should be considered abusive and criminal.

    But the social circle is two-way ... and it's by choice. The person chose to belong to a group that had those rules, presumably because they like the group based partly on those rules existing. People change, life happens, now they don't like the rules.

    So you want to then make everyone else in that group a criminal? That would include the person now deemed "the victim" who, presumably, took part in the system previously.

    Send everyone to jail, no one passes Go and no one collects $200.

    Imagine going to jail for not wanting to associate with someone who was involved in crime, that would be bizarre wouldn't it? How dare people not want to invite the wife-beater over for supper or the creepy-touchy-guy around to play with the kids. Those people should all rot in prison ...

    Who get's to decide which rules are justifiable and which ones aren't? How about you go round intentionally being obnoxious and then suing people for not wanting to hang around with you and welcome you back?

    Yeah, great system, can't see it having any issues at all.

    The most common expression that comes to mind is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre

    Actually you can, as long as there's a fire ;)

  • Simon
    Simon
    The WTS has no legal ground to publicly announce someone not being a JWS therefore instigating a shunning policy ( Hate) against them after a person proclaims they dont want to be involved with this organization.

    In that case, sue them. I think you'll find you'd lose because they do have every legal right to limit who can be a member of the group they legally own and operate as long as such membership rules don't contravene any laws.

    And religious groups usually don't have to comply with the same set of "be fair" rules that the rest of society do - they can discriminate.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    they do have every legal right to limit who can be a member of the group they legally own

    True but do they have the right to instigate a hate inspired shunning policy onto a person who voluntary wants to leave on their own accord and physically did so ?

    Many people have been Dfed in abstention because they were doing activities against the WTS rules of doctrine but they weren't active participants of the ORG.

  • Simon
    Simon
    True but do they have the right to instigate a hate inspired shunning policy onto a person who voluntary wants to leave on their own accord and physically did so?

    "hate inspired" ... can you prove that?

    It's easy to claim, but proving it would be hugely difficult for many reasons.

    And again, regular attendance is one of the rules of membership and association one of the "perks" (not really, going to meetings is a drag).

    Many people have been Dfed in abstention because they were doing activities against the WTS rules of doctrine but they weren't active participants of the ORG

    So what do they care then?

    A club they don't want to belong to doesn't want them as a member ...

    That's where this always ends up. "I want to leave - but how dare they say I can't be a member!".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit